A triumphant ceasefire this is not.
On Tuesday evening, April 7, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. and Israel had agreed to a two-week ceasefire in their conflict with Iran. Trump explained the ceasefire as a chance to end hostilities while negotiating toward a broader solution.
He said the U.S. and Israel would end their bombing campaign while Iran would open up the Strait of Hormuz, the closure of which has upended global markets.
It was, essentially, a declaration that the two sides would talk about it. Unlike in the last ceasefire that halted an Israel-related conflict — the one in Gaza in the fall — nothing was really accomplished. (That one included an agreement to return the remaining hostages held by Hamas.)
The lack of clarity on the path forward left Jewish groups either critical or unwilling to comment at this time.
The criticism actually focused on Trump’s Truth Social post on the day leading up to the ceasefire that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran didn’t agree.
In an April 7 Jewish Telegraphic Agency report, the American Jewish Committee said it was “alarmed” by Trump’s rhetoric. Amy Spitalnick, the CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, called the threat “horrific.” J Street described it as a “searing violation of Jewish and American values.” Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt referred to it as “genocidal rhetoric.”
Morton Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America, criticized the ceasefire from a strategic standpoint. In a round of interviews after Trump’s announcement, Klein called the proposal a “worthless, dangerous delaying tactic.” He also explained that the Iranian regime had a history of exploiting such tactics to rebuild its nuclear capabilities.
“The only way to stop Iran is militarily. History has shown us that not responding to an illegal serious action brings war, not peace. I’m very worried that they’re going to make some sort of deal because Iran will not fulfill their obligations under any deal they sign,” Klein said in a statement after Trump’s announcement.
Locally, Jewish groups deferred comment. A spokesperson for the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington said they declined to weigh in.
The American Jewish Committee released a statement on April 10 in support of the current ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran “as a means to create space for meaningful diplomacy.” The AJC reposted a statement of what it believes must be addressed in direct negotiations, including Iran’s agreement never to obtain a nuclear weapon, Israel’s sovereign right to security and self-defense, and the security of the U.S.’ Arab partners in the region.
Anne Dreazen, the vice president of AJC’s Center for a New Middle East, who is based in D.C., wrote that the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran is “less a resolution than a pause,” in an April 11 article originally published in The Times of Israel.
The Trump administration held talks with the Iranian regime in Islamabad, Pakistan, over the weekend of April 11 and 12. Vice President JD Vance took the lead on the Trump team, alongside Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff.
Vance emerged from the negotiations saying that the Iranians had “chosen not to accept our terms,” which he described as conditions aimed at ending Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, halting uranium enrichment, and securing unrestricted access through the Strait of Hormuz, along with broader U.S. demands that Iran cease support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
On April 12, after the latest rounds of U.S.-Iran negotiations ended without agreement, Dreazen said this “disappointing” outcome wasn’t surprising.
She said the options facing Washington — pick up military operations or preserve the ceasefire and begin negotiations — don’t convey the complexity of the next step.
The return to large-scale military operations in Iran is unlikely to succeed, Dreazen opined in an April 12 article. Maintaining a ceasefire while continuing talks offers short-term stability but is risky due to Iran’s “substantial stockpile of highly enriched uranium and the ability to threaten global shipping,” she wrote.
The middle path of “coercive diplomacy” could be a third option: preserve the ceasefire, apply additional pressure and force Iran to concede. But Dreazen calls this approach unlikely. Because Iran controls the flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz, the nation has immense influence over the global economy and thus does not need to win militarily to sway outcomes.
“That reality constrains the tools available to Washington,” Dreazen wrote.
The U.S. could use its strengths in the maritime domain, such as its April 12 announcement of a naval blockade. The U.S. could also apply more economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran with the help of partners and the larger economic community,
Dreazen wrote.
“But none of these tools, on their own, offer a clear or low-risk path to achieving both of Washington’s stated objectives: removing the threat posed by Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and restoring the Strait of Hormuz as a genuinely open international waterway,” Dreazen wrote.
Zoe Bell contributed reporting to this article.
